Target in what manner? I don't see your point there. As in being shot??

Of course since the purpose is obviously to push gay rights, etc., who is the audience? Given that gays are around 3% of the population, the answer must be that to survive, the comic must be purchased, assuming it is not being subsidized, by the general population.

So a gay married Senator campaigning against guns, or as the Right will say, against the Second Amendment, should make better copy.

OTOH, if we made Keller trying to qualify for a concealed carry license to protect his wife who was shot while leaving a meeting of the Log Cabin Republicans then the appeal is broadened.

Probably get approved of by the NRA.

Do I hear an Amen??

There are people who push against the status quo to move things forward, and those who push against progress to preserve the status quo.

Those who feel safe and comfortable in the bubble of the status quo are going to regard those not content to run in place as "unreasonable," but I think you are mistaking "unreasonable" for "uncomfortable."

Anyway, the offscreen decadence at Disney studios clearly belies its characters' scrupulously maintained public images. We all know about what happened to Lindsay Lohan and Miley Cyrus. But most people are completely unaware how Disney has long used its child stars for its own ends, only to callously dump them when they're of no further use.

Further, there's documented evidence of other outrageous behavior exhibited by Disney veterans. If people only knew what really goes on there! It's positively shocking, a Hollywood scandal waiting to unfold.

Now, I'm going to put on my legislative analyst's hat. Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that you are correct that CA voters may well approve such an initiative to split their state into six autonomous entities.

At that point, according to the terms of the initiative, Gov. Jerry Brown would be required to submit the voters' proposal for dissolution of California and its reconstitution into six separate states to Congress by no later than January 1, 2018. Congress would then have exactly one year to act on the proposal and pass it, or it expires on January 1, 2019. Assuming that it then passes, it would then require the approval of the White House, and a congressional override should the president veto the measure.

Once all that happens, each new state would have to convene a constitutional convention to draft a state constitution, which must also be accepted by Congress before statehood can be conferred.

Wait a minute, I'm not done. Through November 15, 2017, the measure would also allow any county --- subject to the approval of that county's voters via referendum --- to adopt an ordinance allowing it to be reassigned from the state in which it is placed by this measure, to one of the other five proposed states.

This could only occur, however, if the reassigned state's borders are immediately adjacent to those of the county in question, and then, only if a majority of the boards of supervisors of the all the other counties in the reassigned state approve of that change.

Further, each of California's 58 counties would have to adopt entirely new charters relative to the new states of which they'd be part, all of which would be subject to respective county voter approval, and then, as those counties are assigned to their respective state, approval for that would have to be obtained as well, most likely from the county boards of supervisors.

Hold on, I'm still not done. The California State Legislature would have to provide for the creation of a 24-member Board of Commissioners for a term of no more than 24 months, which would be required to "settle and adjust the property and financial affairs" between the existing state and the six new states.

This would require the disposition of each of the State of California's physical and other assets --- as well as division of the former state's financial and other liabilities --- among the six new states. As an example, California has two statewide university systems, the University of California and the California State University. Each of those systems would be required to dissolve.

If the Board of Commissioners fail to reach resolution before the end of that 24 months, the measure states that California's state debts would be distributed among the new states based on population and the assets of the former California within each new state's boundaries would become an asset of that new state.

We're now in the home stretch. There will be the inevitable court challenges, by which litigants would question the validity of this proposal along several lines, including ones related to the distribution of California's assets and liabilities, the provision of public services among the six states, and constitutional issues related to congressional approval of the new states.

Such court cases will persist for an awfully long time, and probably last beyond our own lifetimes. The protracted legal wrangling between Virginia and West Virginia over the latter's share of state debt, which dated back to its 1863 secession from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Civil War-era statehood -- was never completely resolved until 1916, and several cases went to the U.S. Supreme Court for adjudication.

Additionally, a probably lawsuit would concern whether this is an initiative measure -- as the text of this measure clearly states -- or an actual revision of the California Constitution, because for our purposes here, the two are not one and the same. A revision is often much broader in scope than an initiative measure, and any change or amendment that substantively alters the basic governmental framework of the State of California is considered a constitutional revision.

Under the California Constitution, such revisions may only be proposed by either the State Legislature or by a duly convened state constitutional convention. Further, any proposed revision that is initially approved by either body is then further subject to public approval via a statewide voter referendum.

Does your head hurt yet? If not, then wrap it around this: According to the California Legislative Analyst's office, the plan would also lead to the creation of the richest state in the country (Silicon Valley) and the poorest state in the country (Central California), which would have a per capita personal income well below even that currently found in Mississippi. These income disparities would also translate into widely divergent tax bases, and the regional disparities would invariably affect various fiscal and policy decisions of each of the six states.

Good luck with wading through all that. If anyone would like to hear more, I'd be happy to discuss the vast and obvious disparities in education, health and human services, etc., water rights, which would exist in the new states. I love talking about this sort of stuff. This is my turf, so to speak.

That said, I think you know as well as I do that none of this is ever going to happen. The latest poll from the Public Policy Institute of California shows that 59% of California voters already disapprove of this prospective measure. And that number can only go up, as people like me begin to explain to those voters exactly what they'd be in for, should they collectively drop acid and decide to embrace the stupid.

So, this silly idea is really nothing but a complete waste of everyone's time -- including that of Tim Draper, that dim bulb of a venture capitalist who's about to learn the validity of an old adage about a fool and his money soon being parted. And while we're on the subject of fleecing, I'm sure kdog probably has a couple of bridges spanning the Hudson that this clown might be interested in, as well.